1.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner," has filed
with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as the "Communities." Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"),1 and the Commission's implementing rules,2 and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DIRECTV, Inc. ("DIRECTV"), and DISH Network ("DISH"). The petition is unopposed.
2.
In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be
subject to effective competition,3 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules.4 The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area.5 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition based on our finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachment A.

II.

DISCUSSION

3.
Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject
to effective competition if the franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated multi-channel video programming distributors ("MVPDs"), each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and (b) the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.6 This test is referred to as the "competing provider" test.

4.
The first prong of this test has three elements: the franchise area must be "served by" at
least two unaffiliated MVPDs who offer "comparable programming" to at least "50 percent" of the households in the franchise area.7 It is undisputed that the Communities are "served by" both DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated with Petitioner or with each other. A franchise area is considered "served by" an MVPD if that MVPD's service is both technically and actually available in the franchise area. DBS service is presumed to be technically available due to its nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in the franchise area are made reasonably aware of the service's availability.8 The Commission has held that a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the second prong of the competing provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS services to show that consumers are reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service.9 We further find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion that potential customers in the Communities are reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.10 The "comparable programming" element is met if a competing MVPD provider offers at least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one channel of nonbroadcast service programming,11 and is supported in this petition with copies of channel lineups for both DIRECTV and DISH.12 Also undisputed is Petitioner's assertion that both DIRECTV and DISH offer service to at least "50 percent" of the households in the Communities because of their national satellite footprint.13 Accordingly, we find that the first prong of the competingprovider test is satisfied.
5.
The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households
subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in a franchise area. Petitioner sought to determine the competing provider penetration in the Communities by purchasing subscriber tracking reports from the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association ("SBCA") that identified the number of subscribers attributable to the DBS providers within the Communities on a zip code plus four basis.14 Petitioner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, and Sacramento County franchise areas.15 With respect to the community of Elk Grove, Petitioner asserts that it serves in excess of 15 percent of the households in this community, while competing MVPD providers serve an aggregate of more than 38 percent of the households.16
6.
Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using
Census 2010 household data,17 as reflected in Attachment A, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs, other than the largest

MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, and Sacramento County. With regard to the community of Elk Grove, we are able to conclude that the second prong of the competing provider test is met by analyzing the data submitted for both Petitioner and its MVPD competitors. If the subscriber penetration for both the Petitioner and the aggregate competing MVPD information each exceed 15 percent in the franchise area, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.18 In Elk Grove, the Petitioner's penetration rate is in excess of 15 percent of the households and the combined competing MVPD provider penetration rate is more than 38 percent.19 Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied for each of the Communities. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that both prongs of the competing provider test are satisfied and Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachment A.

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

7.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

IS GRANTED

.
8.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to any of the Communities set forth on Attachment A

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading.
We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology.
The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

You are leaving the FCC website

Click Here To Continue to

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.